Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive - Conclusion

Ardjuna Seghers

By Ardjuna Seghers



Our Score:


So is the Barracuda XT 2TB “the world’s fastest desktop hard drive”? Not by a long shot. After all, there are plenty of SSDs that will leave Seagate's monster choking in the dust. However, what it comes close to being is the fastest one we have tested. We say 'close' because Western Digital's VelociRaptor still takes that crown in a majority of scenarios, but given the capacity difference that's not much of a criticism. Despite hardly benefiting from SATA 6Gb/s' extra bandwidth then, the Barracuda XT 2TB performs well when it comes to speed, produces a quiet hum in use and never gets more than warm to the touch.

Where the Barracuda falls down significantly is price. Sure, we're used to paying a premium for new technology, but retailing at around £246 compared to the £115 that will net you a 2TB Hitachi Deskstar or roughly £130 for the cool and quiet 2TB Western Digital Caviar Green, it's hardly good value. In fact, for the price you could get a small SSD – like the Kingston SSDNow! V-series 40GB - for your main system install and most frequently-used apps, and a decent 2TB drive for all your large files, and still be better off.


Offering good performance despite disappointing SATA 6Gb/s results, the Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB is only let down by its high price, which in some cases is twice what the competition demand for similar capacity hard drives.

Overall Score


Scores In Detail

  • Value 5
  • Features 8


February 18, 2010, 10:56 am

Lets face it none of those tests even exceed the sata 1.5gb/s limit.Another excuse to buy unneeded hardware.


February 18, 2010, 2:13 pm

These drives might not exceed the TEORETICAL max of sata I (1.5gbps), but in reality both sata II and III have their advantages, more specificly SATA II's new features like ahci, ncq and other enhancements that improve performance.

Otoh, i dont recomend getting sata 3 if you have sata 2 allready - you will still gain the performance of this disk (but only if you run them in ahci mode and not legacy ide).


February 18, 2010, 3:26 pm


For now, I agree with you. However, as I mention in my {http://www.trustedreviews.c...} P7P55D-E motherboard review, SATA 6Gb/s should get the chance to come into its own once fast SSDs adopt the interface. Therefore it's not totally "unneeded" for future-proofing.


As above - if you're planning a build with a moving parts drive there seems little reason to get SATA III (which is officially called 'SATA 6Gb/s', much as 'SATA III' might have made everyone's life easier as 'SATA II' has become the most common appellation for its predecessor).


February 18, 2010, 8:56 pm

> We check out the first hard drive ... to come with 64MB of cache.

Is the WD Caviar Black 2TB not available in the UK? It's been on the market for almost 8 months now.

It's a bit odd that you don't compare the Seagate to that drive since the Caviar Black is a much more direct competitor for the Seagate than any of the other drives you compare it with.

G Hell

February 20, 2010, 3:57 am

I know I'm nit picking (after all, I can't fault your verdict) but

"...the higher bandwidth does result in faster maximum writes..."

is not what the histogram shows. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly it says that max write speed on SATA 3GB is 129.5 MB per sec and on SATA 6GB it is only 100.9 MB per sec.


February 22, 2010, 7:32 pm

The tests сlearly show that Marwell "SATA 3G" chips are a swindle. They are even inferior to Intel SB SATA II


March 2, 2010, 10:47 pm


Good point actually, I'm not sure which one made it to market first...

@G Hell:

Well spotted - that should have been "Reads". Review corrected, thanks.


Indeed, hence "The only possible conclusion to part of this puzzle is that the Intel 3Gb/s controller outperforms the Marvel 6Gb/s one regardless of bandwidth."

comments powered by Disqus